| [Back to front page] | Assessing CIFOR’s
Research Impacts and Setting Priorities The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests specifically requested CIFOR in collaboration with others to: ‘guide the identification and definition as well as the prioritisation of global and eco-regional interdisciplinary research problems’; and ‘..extend on-site research and enhance its prioritisation and the application of its results, with the involvement of all interested parties in the planning implementation, monitoring and evaluation of research, so as to enhance its relevance and impact’…. CIFOR has a challenging research mandate that requires it to address strategic forestry-related research issues of global significance encompassing, social, economic and ecological factors. In addressing such issues the aim is to generate significant positive impacts for the benefit of large numbers of poor people in many different parts of the world. CIFOR operates primarily through research partnerships with collaborators and associates located in an array of highly diverse organisations around the world. CIFOR is therefore accountable to a wide range of stakeholders; the CGIAR, donor agencies, research partners, government agencies and NGOs. There is a corresponding diversity of demands for research-related evaluation and a variety of differing perspectives on appropriate research priorities. The challenges facing research managers in this context are considerable. CIFOR’s work on ‘Research Impacts, Priorities and Capacity Evaluation’ consists of two main themes, methodology development for priority setting/impact evaluation and impact assessment case studies. Specific activities include strategic priority setting, project screening and ex ante evaluation, project monitoring, impact assessment and research capacity assessments (see diagram below). Responsibility for many aspects of research evaluation are, however, shared among several CIFOR management and staff members. In the short-to-medium term, efforts will concentrate on developing methodologies both for impact assessment and for priority setting. Such methods are not well developed in the natural resources research context. The term ‘natural resources research’ covers a highly diverse array of activities with an even wider range of possible research outcomes. In contrast, the details relating to any particular research activity and its resulting outcomes are highly specific. Methods to assess actual research impact are very likely to be case specific rather than generic. In priority setting, by comparison, there is greater scope for the development of generic methods. |